Spoilage Microbes and Their Detection: What Is New and What Has Changed ?, P.1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EDWARDS, SPOILAGE MICROBES AND THEIR DETECTION: WHAT IS NEW AND WHAT HAS CHANGED ?, P.1 SPOILAGE MICROBES AND THEIR DETECTION: WHAT IS NEW AND WHAT HAS CHANGED? Dr. Charles G. EDWARDS Food Scientist (Enology)/Professor, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Program in Viticulture and Enology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA Seminar presented at Enoforum 2007, March 13th -15th, Piacenza, Italy Introduction Some believe that the incidence of spoilage microorganisms in wines has increased in recent years. Though not all winemakers agree with this speculation, two issues of potential importance are increases in must pH and a wider application of improved detection methods. Winemakers have experimented with delaying fruit harvest as a means to favorably alter flavor and tannin profiles. In many cases, wine quality has improved. However, one consequence of this practice is that grapes frequently suffer from higher pH, a condition favorable to the growth of various microorganisms (Davis et al., 1986a). The pH of musts also influences the effectiveness of SO2 with less amounts of the antimicrobial portion (molecular) present at higher pH. As such, some have suggested that the increased “hang-time” prior to harvest can also adversely impact wine quality by encouraging the potential for microbial spoilage. Another issue has been application of improved methods to detect microorganisms in musts and wines. Perhaps the most important are the so-called “real-time” molecular techniques. Based upon determination of similarities at the gene level, these methods are being used to identify and, in some cases, quantify microbiological populations. While these methods offer tremendous opportunities to improve microbiological control during vinification, there are potential limitations to routinely using these methods in wine analysis. This paper summarizes the impact of selected spoilage microorganisms, namely Brettanomyces, Pediococcus, and Lactobacillus, on wine quality as well as some methods for detection. Brettanomyces The yeasts Brettanomyces/Dekkera are well-known wine spoilage microorganisms whose growth can result in haziness or production of off-odors sometimes described as ‘medicinal,’ ‘mousiness,’ ‘Band- aid®,’ ‘barnyard,’ or others (Gilliland, 1961; Heresztyn, 1986; Fugelsang et al., 1993; Sponholz, 1993). Previously described species of Brettanomyces isolated from wines have been reclassified several times, with D. bruxellensis and D. anomala now believed to be the microorganisms associated with wine spoilage (Grbin and Henschke, 2000). While many wine microorganisms including Acetobacter, O. oeni, L. hilgardii, L. plantarum, L. brevis, P. pentosaceus, P. damnosus, and Saccharomyces can synthesize 4-vinyl guaiacol or 4-vinyl phenol from ferulic and p-coumaric acids (Figure 1), respectively, most are not able to reduce the vinyl intermediates to 4-ethyl guaiacol or 4-ethyl phenol (Chatonnet et al., 1992; 1995; Shinohara et al., 2000). Because of this observation, analysis of 4-ethyl phenol has been used as an indicator of Brettanomyces infections. However, some microorganisms, most notably L. plantarum (Chatonnet et al., 1992; 1995; Cavin et al., 1993) and Pichia guilliermondii (Dias et al., 2003), are reported to produce either very small amounts of these ethyl phenols or do not survive in wine. The recent finding of isolating Candida pararugosa and Pichia guillermondii from spoiled wines in Washington State not WWW.INFOWINE.COM – INTERNET JOURNAL OF VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY, 2007, # 4 EDWARDS, SPOILAGE MICROBES AND THEIR DETECTION: WHAT IS NEW AND WHAT HAS CHANGED ?, P.2 containing Brettanomyces (data not shown) suggests that other microorganisms may, in fact, be able to produce volatile phenols in wines under certain conditions. OH OH OH Cinnamate Vinyl decarboxylase reductase CH Reduced CO2 CH CH Oxidized CH2 (co-enzyme) CH COOH CH2 3 p-Coumaric acid Vinylphenol 4-Ethylphenol Figure 1. Formation of 4-ethyl phenol from p-coumaric acid. Controlling the growth of the spoilage yeast within a winery is not an easy task. In fact, Brettanomyces appears to be relatively tolerant to sulfites so winemakers commonly add 0.4 to 0.6 mg/L molecular sulfur dioxide to limit infections. However, little information is available regarding the toxicity of sulfites towards this spoilage yeast. Pediococcus Pediococci are characterized as being spherical, Gram positive, non-motile, catalase negative, aerobic to microaerophilic microorganisms (Garvie, 1986; Carr et al., 2002). Pediococcus is the only lactic acid bacterium that divide in two planes, thereby appearing microscopically as tetrads or large clumps of cells (Garvie, 1986; Axelsson, 1998). Currently approved species are P. acidilacti, P. damnosus, P.dextrinicus, P. halophilus, P. inopinatus, P. parvulus, P. pentosaceus, and P. urinae-equi (Garvie, 1986). The International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology has ruled that one species reported to be present in wines, P. cerevisiae, was not validly described as it represented at least two different species, P. damnosus and P. pentosaceus (Garvie, 1974; 1986; Raccach, 1987). Ecology Although P. damnosus has been isolated from grape musts (Lonvaud-Funel et al., 1991), little is known regarding the ecology of other species. In a comprehensive study by Costello et al. (1983), a number of lactic acid bacteria were isolated from musts and wines at different times during vinification including Pediococcus spp., in agreement with others (Lafon-Lafourcade et al., 1983b; Fleet et al., 1984; Davis et al. 1986a; 1986b; Sieiro et al., 1990). Species of Pediococcus isolated from wine include P. damnosus, P. pentosaceus, P. parvulus and, to a lesser extent, P. inopinatus (Davis et al., 1986b; Garvie, 1986; Edwards and Jensen, 1992; Manca de Nadra and Strasser de Saad, 1995). Pediococci are commonly found in red wines during barrel aging (Edwards and Jensen, 1992). Besides pH, the growth of Pediococcus in wine is influenced by a variety of conditions including SO2, ethanol, and lysozyme. Edwards and Jensen (1992) reported that pediococci isolated from wines produced in Washington tended to grow slower in 30 mg/L total SO2 and that only one of the ten strains analyzed grew in 14% ethanol. Work by Davis et al. (1988) with lactic acid bacteria isolated from WWW.INFOWINE.COM – INTERNET JOURNAL OF VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY, 2007, # 4 EDWARDS, SPOILAGE MICROBES AND THEIR DETECTION: WHAT IS NEW AND WHAT HAS CHANGED ?, P.3 Australia red wines indicated that strains of L. oenos (O. oeni) were less tolerant to sulfur dioxide than strains of P. parvulus. Davis et al. (1988) further suggested that wines with high total SO2 concentration may be more likely to support the growth of Pediococcus than L. oenos, in disagreement with Hood (1983) who reported that pediococci were less tolerant to bound SO2 than lactobacilli or leuconostocs. Pediococcus spp. are also sensitive to lysozyme but more resistant than other bacteria. As an example, Delfini et al. (2004) noted that P. parvulus survived concentrations of 500 mg/L, generally higher than those of Lactobacillus (200 to 500 mg/L) or Oenococcus (50 to 100 mg/L). Wine spoilage Pediococcus spp. in wine has been generally considered to be undesirable due to the production of off- aromas and flavors like ‘excessive butter’, ‘bitterness’, or even ‘dirty socks.’ Pediococci are capable of producing diacetyl, a compound reminiscent of ‘butter’ that adversely affects wine quality at high concentrations (Sponholz, 1993). Some species are also capable of degrading glycerol to acrolein, a compound that reacts with phenolics to produce a bitter taint in wine (Davis et al., 1988; Sponholz, 1993; Du Toit and Pretorius, 2000). Besides producing off-flavors, Pediococcus spp. have been implicated in the production of extra- cellular polysaccharides. These homoglucans are produced from glucose and consist of a trisaccharide repeating unit having a (1Æ3)-linked backbone and a (1Æ2)-linked branch of one of the D- glucopyranosyl groups (Llauberes et al., 1990). While visually unappealing, these polymers cause an increase in viscosity of the wine (Manca de Nadra and Strasser de Saad, 1995). Pediococci associated with this ‘ropiness’ defect are thought to have higher tolerances to ethanol than other strains (Du Toit and Pretorius, 2000). P. damnosus is the bacterium primarily implicated in the production of polysaccharides in wine, although P. pentosaceus may also be involved (Manca de Nadra and Strasser de Saad, 1995; Lonvaud-Funel, 1999). As strains of P. damnosus that produce polysaccharides contain a unique 4 Kb plasmid, Lonvaud-Funel et al. (1993) developed a DNA probe for detection. More recently, Gindreau et al. (2001) reported use of a direct polymerase chain reaction (PCR) detection method to detect these strains. Although growth of certain Pediococcus spp. in wines is undesirable, Edwards and Jensen (1992) isolated pediococci from several high quality commercial wines. Later work by Edwards et al. (1994) noted that some of these strains (P. parvulus) altered the bouquet of a Cabernet Sauvignon wine that had not undergone MLF but without spoilage. In addition, Silver and Leighton (1981) noted that strain B44-40, initially thought to be Leuconostoc oenos (Oenococcus oeni) but now believed to be Pediococcus (Kelly et al., 1989), catalyzed MLF in wines without formation of off-odors or flavors. It is therefore possible that the growth of certain pediococci in wine may add desirable flavors and aromas under specific circumstances.